Daily Republican., 1887-10-05
NEAR fa n CLOSE.

NEAR faB CLOSE.
Yesterday Afternoon's Prscsedlags-A
Verdict OF Gniity in the Case OF VIII
Market Csses.
Argument on the motion to Quash the
Indictment In the case OF Jeremiah h
W ood, charged with violating the mar
ket laws, was resumed at yester lay after.
moons se1ion of court by Mr. Big2s,
who contended that the intent OF the
market law is TO include in its provisions
every person doing business on the streets
where the markets ara located. he
spoke until $50 o'clock, and just rs he
closed the jury 10 fhs case of William ID.
Potter, colored, charged with assault and
battery came 10 with a verdict OF guilty.
They were polied, at the request OF Mr.
sanhorn, and each man answered that 1t
was his verdict
| Mr.. Lore then proceeded with his ar
gument for the d.fense in the marketf
case and contended that the defendant
was not sailing in the cnrbstone market.
and therefore could not be prosec uted
under this law.
| The Chief Justice said that while he-
had paid but little attention TO the mar
ket laws, he could not coincide 10 Mr..
Lpre's view, that because the Law limited
the space where produce may be sold to-
eight feet in length ard thres feet in
width, II did not apply to persons doing
, business outside of that limit He denied
the right of an owner or tennat to rent or
, lease space within four feet of the
! building line to any one, for the purpose
!, of trsnsacting business. Tn 8 is as much
O part of the sidewalk as the epace where
, people walk, and which 1t may, IN y
measure, be obstructed by steps, and in
some instances cellar doors, both of
which are necessary, 1t cannot be OBJ
structed In any other way. In conclu-
, sion he said that he did not think any
/ one had right to sell on the sidewalk Of
!. any street where the markets exist, ualess
! they complied with this statue.
I Judge Houston gave dissenting
t opinion, on the ground that as this man
\ was not selling within the limits assigned
. by the law as q curbstone market, he
4 could D. ot be prosecuted under this law,
;. and that therefore the Indictment would
J. not lie II he has committed any ofense,
It he must be presented under some other
10 law If there is any that applys to his
d case.
10 The Chief Justice then decided that as
d the Court disagreed on this matter, the
., indictment would have to be quashed,
o and the jury, with all the other jurcrs,
u were discharged from further attendance
II at this term of court.
1t Austin Harrington, Esq, then called
d the attention of the Court to the motion
n to quash the capias In the case of Andrew
y j. Randall ,one OF the detectives employed
70 by the Every Evening Publishing Com
9. pany IN the raid on the policy men. At
10 the time tha raid was made on PArker's
4. place on French street, the defendant
ID found James A. Anderson.in the bar
ie room and took him in custody with the
others who were In the house.
When Apderson's case was heard by
Judge Cummins on the following day he
ve was discharged, as there was NO evidence
26 to show that he was connected with the
I'd policy business. Anderson then secured
u the services of Anthony Higgins, Esq,
vt and had capiss issued for the arrest of
.se Mr.. Randall, on charge OF false arrest
He was held In IS 900 bail ,and the N motion
st now is to have the capias quasheu, on the
~ ground that when he was arrested he was
np here as q witness.
sre Andrew j. Randall was sworn, and
in testified that he is detective employed
by Moody & Bolen OF Philadelphia and
ale New York. He was sent here by his EN-.
nd ployers on August 23d to look up infor.
eat nation, and obtain evidence against the
policy writer's and their backers. he
eat assisted with the raid made September
nd 18th, and would. have gone home Il
~, Philadelphia that afternoon had he nci
ins been requested by the city solicitor and
be sttomey-general to remain, and give hi'
oil testimony at the hearings the next day
md These hearings were concluded by
o'clock on the 14th of September, and tn,
312 witness was ready to 60 home on the 5.3t
DO. o'c lock train, when he WAS taken iI
Mt custody about 4 O'Clock by the sheriff, ,ant
lst. held about one hour, until he coll,
obtain bail.
On cross-examination by Mr.. Higgins
,elr he said that when he came here he di,
on, not know who had given the orders fo
Was his employment at this work, aud onl
nest obeyed the instructions OF his superInter
has dent. He made all his reports OF the pre-
lms gress of the work to him. On the 11th /
mud WAS sworn in as q spec ial officer b
The Mayor Rboads. to enable him to take pal
lrds in the raid of the 18th. This raid was
We: charge of Superintendent Stark of Phils
delphia, who with others came here
~, assist lie had a number of warrants |
~ his possession but did not remembt
'i'' making any arrests on the 14th.
City Solicitor j Fraak bal. was sW orr
and testified that after the arrests wei
SC; made be requested Mr.. Randall, as on
W. of the principal witnesses tor The prose
qution to remain in The city u1til 81
cases were heard before Judge Clmmin
20. These hearings were not concluded unit
a.. abou' 80 o'clock IN the afternoon OF Il
WI 14th.
Attorney General Biggs stated that
the time Mr.. Randall was arrested he w
light h,ina and noi,cv annaratns which bs
Mn been captured, and marking them wi
MI w the names of the places they had bei
Ing takea from
this Mr. Higgins had Mayor Rioa5s Sc
'on. for, and he testified that he swors in N
tne Randall as special officer for the pr
seen pose of making these raids.
afoe Argument was then commeuced, a
eer, Mr.. Higgins urged that Mr.. Rand
M should be held for trial.
Mr.. Harrington contended that
capi4s should be quaehed, on the gr0u
-, that at the time of the arrest Mr. Rand
oiitP was d. tanned In this city as witness.
oout- cited authorities to sGow that where
.oGge person is In place for the adgslerm'
lsaess of public justice either as witcess
lt ON otherwise he is no, liable to arrest
On OF Mr.. Higgins followed, and spoke in
nmis' usus, iorcihle manner lie claimed &
,hard Mr.. Randall wes here in his ca pscIty 4!
.,onal detective, and that at the time OF
the arrest he was acting as a special pol
Davis officer, al d WAS not here as q witness
also conteuded at the time the arrest v
made he had given his evidence agai
these men, and was no longer witni
'on g but a special officer.
: etTs The closing argunentwas made by
,stern Bates In support Of the motion 10 gu
May, the cspiss. ae contends that 1t was
: % policy OF the aw to induce persons
irs at me from other States to further
a.